How much effect on ECL should Fast Healing have?

[Anubis]

ECL +1 for fast healing 10 is just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Actually, you saying "stupidest" is. That's not a word.

Okay, let's assume the average battle lasts 4 to 6 rounds, for most encounters. Even short ones usually last 2. That's +50 HP on average, regenerateing between encounters. I'd rate it at +1 ECL per 2 Fast Healing, and +2 ECL per +3 Regeneration.

Your argument is invalid. First, there's no guarantee that the character with fast healing is gonna take 10 damage every round. Second, you only get 10 hit points back per round. Third, there are plenty of things out there that can dish out far more than 10 points of damage per round.

As such, fast healing 10 is only ECL +1. For the first few levels, it's pretty good, but not all-powerful. After about Level 5, fast healing 10 ain't doing too much for you. The hill giant that can dish out 40 damage per round without breaking a sweat will laugh at your fast healing 10.

So, what you're saying is, +50 HP, and the ability to cure all damage to self at will when not under stress, is +1 ECL?

That +50 is invalid, as I have already shown. As for healing all damage between battles, what does that matter? Assuming Level 5, with an average maximum of about 30, you're maybe saving 3 or 4 charges of the Wand of Cure Light Wounds that any intelligent players carry several of by Level 5. At Level 10, you're maybe saving 10 charges per battle. After that, the cost of a Wand of Cure Light Wounds is so miniscule that it doesn't matter. Healing between battles is a moot point that really doesn't change the outcome of the debate.

Ummmmm . . . your wrong. Consider this: A party of 2nd level characters comes across a Wolf, but this wolf has Fast Healing 10. They won't even be able to touch it!

Would you like to test that hypothesis? A wolf, by the revised system, is normal CR 1/2. With fast healing, the CR would be 1. Either way, the wolf has 13 hit points. If a Level 2 party can't deal 13 points of damage in a single round, there is something wrong with the players. Two hits should take the thing out easily.

Jusm MHO,
Jeph

Perhaps I'll bring UK over here. If you still want to continue debating, I'm sure he can explain it better than I can.

 

[Crothian]

I realize that ecl and CR need to be the same for your purposes, but they aren't. THe big difference is CR is for opponents and ecl are for players. Some abilities like fast healing are weaker for creatures that are going to die in a game, and more powerful for players who are meant to live and are able to take advantage of this ability every combat, every session.

While healing might be easy to buy, over a campaign you'll be saving yourself a huge amount on potions and wands by having characters that never need to be healed except in dire circumstances.

 

[Sollir Furryfoot]

You seem very opinionated about this matter, Anubis, and have seemed to put in alot of research into it, however I must strongly disagree with the sentiment that Fast Healing 10 = ECL +1.

Taking into examples low level, lets assume the lowest being 2 characters, one with fast healing of 10 and 1 level of fighter vs. someone else with 2 levels of fighter (or whatever class you choose). On average, lets say they both wield greatswords, and have strengths around 16 and constitutions around 14 (assuming a semi-generous point buy), with maximum hit points at first level and 1/2 HD +1 at every other level, Fighter A would have 12 hitpoints while Fighter B would have 20 hitpoints. The only other differences in stats otherwise would be that fighter B has +1 more BAB and a single feat. I'm sure if you went through the battle analysis of this, Fighter A would almost always win (exception being perhaps if Fighter B crit'd and rolled well), otherwise, both fighters will only hit each other about 50% of the time, and every time Fighter B would not hit Fighter A, he'd be almost completely healed. Besides the benefit in combat, Fighter A would be automatically healed between every battle, giving him almost infinite fighting power.

This example does lower a bit at higher levels, but, the 1 level trade off for Fast Healing 10 (which averages in a net gain of about 50-60 hitpoints a battle most likely) outweighs the losses of a single level. For your Hill Giant example, a Hill Giant may be able to do 40 damage a round, but Fast Healing of 10 would negate 1/4 of it, and there is still a good chance he can miss, making the fast healing being doubly effective, since it always works.

Also, look the Soldier of Light (or similarly named) PrC from Manual of the Planes, as a class feature, they gain Fast Healing 1 (at about 6th level I believe) and eventually Fast Healing 2 at 10th level of the class.

My personal sentiment is that Fast Healing 2 is placed at ECL +1, Fast Healing 4 or 5 maybe placed at ECL +2, and fast healing of 10 to be at a minimum of +3 ECL. If you play in a campaign that starts at a higher level than usual, you may wish to place these at lower ECLs, but otherwise, it just doesn't seem to work IMHO for every circumstance.

 

[CRGreathouse]

OK, I'm fed up with the attitude here. Maybe it's just me, maybe it's just the fact that I'm sleep-deprived, but something just doesn't feel right.

Remember, ECL and CR are technically the same thing. That may not be how the core rules use it, but it IS how UK and I use it. Doing it any other way, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to create a system that works.

ECL != CR. It is certainly possible to create a system that works with the two as different entities - and I've yet to see a system that works with ECL = CR.

[ECL and CR] are the measure of a creatures innate powers. Neither take equiment into consideration, so equipment is not a factor.

Both take equipment into consideration. Take the kobold as an excellent example of this (assuming CR 1/6, ECL +0).

Like I said, if you try to have ECL and CR be different, you'll NEVER find anything that works. Trust us, we know. We've tried. UK and have have, together put (I'm guessing) hundreds of hours into studying this particular subject.

"Never"? That's a foolishly broad statement. I'll go out on a limb and say it's unconditionally wrong.

The basis of ECL and CR being the same is simple: PCs are, by default, stronger than NPCs of the same level. As such, a creature with ECL as a PC will naturally have more power than a creature of the same level. In testing, it works out perfectly, believe me. ECL and CR are the same. The only reason we still have ECL AND CR is because at higher levels, CR is lower than ECL because it takes more levels to gain power, and XP is still calculated by CR, taking the party's average level as average CR instead.

PC (ECL = k) > NPC (ECL = k) -> PC (ECL = k) > Creature (ECL = k)

What, exactly, does this have to do with ECL vs. CR? It doesn't logically follow, and the result is irrelevant. You need to show that NPC (ECL = k) = PC (CR = k).

The reason you can't calculate it is because you haven't yet come to the realization that ECL and CR are teh same. Having overlapping abilities doesn't take away from ECL. For instance, most fast healing is Extraordinary and thus is not stopped by an Antimagic Field, while healing spells and spell-like abilities are.

You gotta take the sum of all powers, whether they overlap or not. Go check out my ECL thread for details.

Stop being condescending, especially when your own point is unproven.

Actually, you saying "stupidest" is. That's not a word.

Don't be condescending toward other board members, it makes us look bad. Don't correct people who aren't wrong.

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=stupidest&r=67

stu·pid Pronunciation Key (stpd, sty-)
adj. stu·pid·er, stu·pid·est
Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake.
Dazed, stunned, or stupefied.
Pointless; worthless: a stupid job.

n.
A stupid or foolish person.

Your argument is invalid. First, there's no guarantee that the character with fast healing is gonna take 10 damage every round. Second, you only get 10 hit points back per round. Third, there are plenty of things out there that can dish out far more than 10 points of damage per round.

Point (1) is correct, but opposes your own point (3). Point (2) is irrelevant.

The total may be slightly less than 10r (r = rounds), but not significantly so.

That +50 is invalid, as I have already shown.

As you've already shown? Give me a break!

Would you like to test that hypothesis? A wolf, by the revised system, is normal CR 1/2. With fast healing, the CR would be 1. Either way, the wolf has 13 hit points. If a Level 2 party can't deal 13 points of damage in a single round, there is something wrong with the players. Two hits should take the thing out easily.

"By the revised system"? I should hope your system has meaning beyond a single uncommon, unportable house rules system.

 

[Anubis]

"By the revised system"? I should hope your system has meaning beyond a single uncommon, unportable house rules system.

Uncommon and unportable? I guess you aren't one of UK's fans, considering he started this whole thing. I only came in after he started and put my own research in on the matter. I'm certain UK can explain it better than I can, considering he has put more into it.

The reason it seems lopsided at low levels is because it IS lopsided at low levels. You see, that's the ONLY problem with the system we have yet to work out.

Under Level 5, things are horribly overrated. Having fast healing worth more, however, would only make things worse. ECL modifiers can't be based on relation to the level of the creature, otherwise it would gain or lose random ECL as it gains levels, which is something that must be avoided.

Fast healing, however, has already been solved. It's ECL +1/2 per 5 points, plain and simple. There isn't a single thing anywhere that can show this to not balance out perfectly. You give examples, but if you would bother to test it, as I have, and as I'm sure UK has, you would find out that the examples and averages are invalid. Like I said, TRUST ME. I've put in the research and the testing time.

The biggest problems within my system currently is the value of immunities.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Can't we all just get along...?

Hi all!

...allow me to interject.

Both sides of the argument make valid points, the whole question of the difference between giving a PC an ability and giving an NPC the same ability is certainly a sticky one.

However, there are a few facts.

- The Epic Feat; Fast Healing, bestows Fast Healing 3. No Feat can ever be worth more than an actual level. In fact a feat is only ever going to be worth a fraction of a level.

- The Balor and the Pit Fiend are roughly comparable. Yet the Pit Fiend has Regeneration 5 (changed to Fast Healing in the Errata) yet this makes no significant impact on their CRs - according to WotC...or me.

- The Minotaur and the Troll are another example where Regeneration is shown to make little or no impact on CR. The difference between the two is that the Troll has superior strength and constitution (and therefore greater hit points) and regeneration 5. It is only +1 CR higher than the Minotaur. (Incidently I work the Minotaur out to be CR 4.5 and the Troll to be CR 6)

All that said. Fast Healing is probably going to be very useful at low levels; moreso than at epic levels (The Hecatonchiere has Fast Healing 50 and Regeneration 40 but I don't think that is worth the 30+ rise in CR some of you advocate). However, many things could be more useful at low levels. Take a vorpal sword for instance. Who is more powerful; the 1st-level Fighter with the Fast Healing 10 or the 1st-level Fighter with the +5 Vorpal Sword? The correct answer is of course 'what the hell is the DM doing giving out Fast Healing and +5 Vorpal weapons at first level!'

 

[CRGreathouse]

Uncommon and unportable? I guess you aren't one of UK's fans, considering he started this whole thing. I only came in after he started and put my own research in on the matter. I'm certain UK can explain it better than I can, considering he has put more into it.

No matter if I'm a fan or a detractor (actually, I'm in the middle, leaning toward 'fan' -- but that's neither here nor there), his system is both uncommon and unportable.

Uncommon: Most people who play D&D don't use this system. In fact, I'm sure less than 0.1% of those who play D&D use this system. Surely that's not 'common' in your book!

Unportable: The changes that U_K's system makes to the base game assign new meanings to existing terms. "CR", "ECL", "AC", and to a lesser extent "hp" are all changed. An ELH CR 41 Devistation Spider is not CR 41 in U_K's system, nor is an ECL 32 leShay ECL 32 in U_K's system. U_K's advocation of a change in natural armor (re: various outsiders) changes the system even further.

All in all, his system -- while good -- fails to be backward-compatible. This is fine, but makes it hard to port other d20 material into an IH game. As it stands, I may not want to buy a copy (sorry, Upper_Krust) because it would void much of my existing D&D 'library'.

The reason it seems lopsided at low levels is because it IS lopsided at low levels. You see, that's the ONLY problem with the system we have yet to work out.

The only problem? I don't think even U_K would be willing to go so far.

Under Level 5, things are horribly overrated. Having fast healing worth more, however, would only make things worse. ECL modifiers can't be based on relation to the level of the creature, otherwise it would gain or lose random ECL as it gains levels, which is something that must be avoided.

What you claim is that while the system fails on levels 1-4, it works perfectly on levels 5 and up. Can I then take a static template and add it to a level 5 character and add it to a level 50 character and have the same ECL effect? Is this demonstratable true for all templates/abilities? Of course not.

If all abilities must be judged on a static scale rather than a dynamic one, drow and half-fiends (for example) couldn't have static CR/ECL modifiers. Do you adocate changing their ECL/CR as they gain levels?

Fast healing, however, has already been solved. It's ECL +1/2 per 5 points, plain and simple.

This makes me think of the Matrix: "They are guarding all the doors. They are holding all the keys."

There isn't a single thing anywhere that can show this to not balance out perfectly. You give examples, but if you would bother to test it, as I have, and as I'm sure UK has, you would find out that the examples and averages are invalid.

Get off your high horse.

Like I said, TRUST ME. I've put in the research and the testing time.

I have no reason to trust the results of a system that is clearly invalid. You speak haughtily, but your positions are baseless.

The biggest problems within my system currently is the value of immunities.

I thought low-level ECLs were "the ONLY problem with the system we have yet to work out."?

 

[Jarval]

Re: Can't we all just get along...?

- The Epic Feat; Fast Healing, bestows Fast Healing 3. No Feat can ever be worth more than an actual level. In fact a feat is only ever going to be worth a fraction of a level.

With normal feats, I agree with you. However, epic feats are, by their very nature, much more powerful. They can easily (IMO) add up to at least +1 ECL

- The Balor and the Pit Fiend are roughly comparable. Yet the Pit Fiend has Regeneration 5 (changed to Fast Healing in the Errata) yet this makes no significant impact on their CRs - according to WotC...or me.

But an ability that has little effect when used by NPCs and monsters can have a sizeable effect when given to PCs. Even at Epic levels, Fast Healing negates the need for post-battle healing. This can save a huge amount of PC resources over time.

- The Minotaur and the Troll are another example where Regeneration is shown to make little or no impact on CR. The difference between the two is that the Troll has superior strength and constitution (and therefore greater hit points) and regeneration 5. It is only +1 CR higher than the Minotaur. (Incidently I work the Minotaur out to be CR 4.5 and the Troll to be CR 6)

But again, these differences would be far more significant to PCs than NPCs. Would you really give a PC a +1 ECL ability that meant they couldn't be killed by most weapons (as regeneration does)?

Looking at this from a different angle, a Ring of Regeneration only gives you the equivalent of Regeneration 1/600, but cost 90,000 gp. That's the same as a weapon with a +7 bonus, +9 armor, +6 to three different ability scores, or a Mantle of Spell Resistance.

All that said. Fast Healing is probably going to be very useful at low levels; moreso than at epic levels (The Hecatonchiere has Fast Healing 50 and Regeneration 40 but I don't think that is worth the 30+ rise in CR some of you advocate). However, many things could be more useful at low levels. Take a vorpal sword for instance. Who is more powerful; the 1st-level Fighter with the Fast Healing 10 or the 1st-level Fighter with the +5 Vorpal Sword?

I agree with you here. A lot of abilities become much less powerful at high to epic levels than at lower levels. It's going to take quite an ECL system to remove this.

The correct answer is of course 'what the hell is the DM doing giving out Fast Healing and +5 Vorpal weapons at first level!'

Very true.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Re: Re: Can't we all just get along...?

With normal feats, I agree with you. However, epic feats are, by their very nature, much more powerful. They can easily (IMO) add up to at least +1 ECL

Nah. 6 levels of epic fighter give 5 epic feats, 5d10 HD, +3 EAB, and +3 to all saves. Surely 5d10 HD and +3 EAB/ESB is worth no less than one epic feat!

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi CRGreathouse mate!

No matter if I'm a fan or a detractor (actually, I'm in the middle, leaning toward 'fan'

I have to admit to feeling somewhat uncomfortable when I saw Anubis use such terminology. While I appreciate people who are interested in the ideas behind the Immortals Handbook (the Challenge Rating Article being merely one such idea) I usually identify fandom with a substantial body of work - something my limited (to date) musings don't really add up to.

-- but that's neither here nor there),

I think Anubis in his over-enthusiasm failed to notice the classic 'appeal to authority' backbone of his argument.

his system is both uncommon and unportable.

Uncommon, yes. Unportable, no (I have read below and I see you have a few misleading impressions of my work - which I'll address in turn). Easy mistakes to make - I often ramble on about somesuch here on the boards (hit points and armour class etc.) - however these are generally not associated with the Immortals Handbook.

Unportable: The changes that U_K's system makes to the base game assign new meanings to existing terms. "CR", "ECL",

Challenge Ratings are the same. Effective Class Levels is taken literally rather than liberally.

"AC", and to a lesser extent "hp" are all changed.

Actually no. While I have discussed the problems inherant in these particular rules (often as part of 4th Edition commentaries) I have never officially advocated changing them within the d20 System - to do so simply snowballs the number of changes you have to make.

An ELH CR 41 Devistation Spider is not CR 41 in U_K's system, nor is an ECL 32 leShay ECL 32 in U_K's system.

Its true I don't agree with a number of WotCs CRs/ECLs.

U_K's advocation of a change in natural armor (re: various outsiders) changes the system even further.

Actually no. That was some visible brainstorming that I conducted and planned to advocate as an optional rule - however (as I mentioned above) making one such change

All in all, his system -- while good -- fails to be backward-compatible.

Everything in the IH is compatible with the d20 System.

Even the CR/ECL article was taken from an Appendix (ie. its optional, though advocated)

This is fine, but makes it hard to port other d20 material into an IH game.

No other d20 material even attempts to explain the necessary Challenge Ratings (in this case Gods; Divinity). When I came to detail them it was obvious the current rules noticeably breakdown the higher above 20th-level you ascend - a point I have proven in the past as fact.

The ECL System was designed as a byproduct to the CR Modifier. Hence it is not crucial to the Immortals Handbook but rather something DMs and Players can use whenever their deities (whether PCs or NPCs) want to create or modify a character or monster.

As it stands, I may not want to buy a copy (sorry, Upper_Krust)

That in itself is okay mate...

because it would void much of my existing D&D 'library'.

however, it seems you have a number of misconceptions as to the content and nature of my work - in part I must obviously be to blame for such confusion.